STA TE OF WEST BENGAL ETC. versus TERRA FIRMA INVESTMENT AND TRADING PVT. LTD.

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 485 · Decided: 15-11-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. AHMADI, N.P. SINGH

Judgment (excerpt)

STA TE OF WEST BENGAL ETC. 
v. 
TERRA FIRMA INVESTMENT AND TRADING PVT. LTD. 
NOVEMBER 15, 1994 
[A.M. AHMADI AND N.P. SINGH, JJ.) 
Municipalities 
Calcutta Municipal Corporation (Amendment) Act, 1990 amending the 
Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, I 980-0ne year ban on submission of 
A 
B 
plans/or high rise buildings-Validity of 
C 
The Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 came into (orce on 
4.1.1984 by which the earlier Calcutta Municipal Act 1951 was 
repealed. Though power has been conferred on the State Government 
to make rules, till December 1990, n~ Building Rule under the Act was 
made. By virtue of Section. 635 (2) (t) of the Act, Schedule XVI of the D 
earlier Act which contained the Building Rules continued to remain in 
force under the Act. 
The old Building Rules were found to be not suitable and 
appropriate for the construction of the buildings, particularly, high -
rise ones. So a decision was taken to frame new Building Rules to E 
regulate indiscriminate growth of constructions of buildings in 
Calcutta. The State Government formed an Expert Committee, 
consisting of Secretaries of Departments concerned as well as the Chief 
Government Architect, Public Works Department, and the Municipal 
Commissioner of Calcutta for framing the new Building Rules. After F 
thorough and exhaustive consideration by the Expert Committee, the 
Draft Building Rules were finalised, which were modified in the .light of 
representations, suggestions and objections received from various 
· quarters. Various proceedings were initiated in the High Court of 
Calcutta in which ex-parte orders of injunction were granted 
restraining the State Government from publishing the Rules in G 
question. In the meantime, mere and more applications continued to be 
submitted to the ~alcutta Municipal Corporation for sanction of high-
rise buildings under the old Building Rules. As the Assembly was not in 
session, an ordinance was passed imposing a ban on the submission of 
building plans for high-rise construction for a period of one year, 
within which period it was expected that the new Rules shall come in H 
485 
486 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1994] SUPP. S S.C.R. 
A 
force. The Ordinance aforesaid was replaced by the 1990 Amending 
Act. 
B 
The injunction orders passed by the High Court were vacated and 
the new Building Rules were published in the Official Gazette on 
12.12.1990. 
A writ petition was filed by the respondent challenging the 
constitutional validity of the Amending Ordinance, which was later 
replaced by an Amending Act of 1990. Single Judge came to the 
conclusion that the said writ petition had become infructuous, in view 
of the expiry of the period of one year during which the ban was 
C 
imposed. On appeal, Division Bench held that the Amending Act was 
unconstitutional, and directed the Calcutta Municipal Corporation to 
dispose of all applications for sanction of building exceeding 13.S 
metres in height pending as on 18.1:2.1989 in accordance with law, i.e. 
the Building Rules as in force on that date and not the Rules which 
have come into force later. Hence these appeals by the State of West 
D 
Bengal and the Calcutta Municipal Corporation. 
E 
F 
G 
H 
Allowing the appeals, this Court 
HELD: 1. Normally, it is not for the courts to examine the building 
regulations framed by Development Authorities, Improvement Trusts 
and other statutory authorities entrusted with such power under 
different Statutes unless any of such Rule or bye-law can be held to be 
beyond the power vested in them by the statutes concerned, or is held 
to be hit by any of the provisions of the Constitution. The authorities 
who have been entrusted with the duty of framing the building laws 
and bye-laws, are expected to apply their mind not only to the existing 
situation prevailing in any metropolitan city or in an urban area, but 
they have also to keep an eye and foresee the situations which may arise 
in the next century or even later, because the development of a city or 
an urban area is to last for centuries. (491-H, 492-A-B) 
2. Admittedly, the period of one year was over when the writ 
petition was heard by the single Judge. Thereafter the _respondent and 
others were entitled to submit fresh plans for construction of multi-
storeyed buildings according to the new Building Rules. The new 
Building Rules ·had been framed by an Expert committee and after 
consideration of different objections 'from different sections. By

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.